Nationalism & Patriotism

By: Haider Al-Mosawi

The February 2007 edition of Studentalk (A Kuwaiti student magazine) had a coupleof articles about nationalism (to commemorate the Kuwaiti National Days of 25 and26 February). I thought I should use the articles to discuss the issue of nationalism and patriotism, especially since I don’t think the articles did justice to the topic.

Article 1: “The Pearl of the Gulf”

In “The Pearl of the Gulf” article, the writer attempts to answer the question: “What is Nationalism?”Most of the article oscillates between considering nationalism

bad

(e.g. incitingviolence, leading countries to war, etc) or

good

(e.g. uniting a nation’s citizens in theface of an aggressor, uniting different nations in the World Cup, etc). After strugglingto define nationalism, he gives a personal account of sensing “nationalism” whenstudying outside Kuwait, and acting as a “cultural ambassador” to explain what “our country is like.”He goes on to list some of the things Kuwaiti students do in the West to maintain a tiewith Kuwait (e.g. eating Kuwaiti food, whistling the national anthem, pinning up theKuwaiti flag in their residence, etc) and asserts that these are both “examples of nationalism” and the “best definition of nationalism.”

Commentary on “The Pearl of the Gulf”

While the writer contents himself with reaching a definition of nationalism, his“defintion” falls short of… well, a definition. Listing a series of examples doesn’tconstitute a definition, and it doesn’t help explain how nationalism can be linked towar, and whether his definition can completely discard the “negative connotations”associated with nationalism.What is striking about the article (actually, about most articles written these days,especially in student magazines) is the ambiguity of the writing. It’s not a result of badwriting, but a wrong attitude towards language, in general. Words aren’t taken to havefixed meanings, and are, therefore, used as approximations, where the writer thinks heknows what the words mean, and thinks he knows what he wants to say, and assumesthat the reader will understand what he means, even though he doesn’t mean what hesays, because words don’t mean what they do!The clearest example I can give from the article is the following sentence: “…continuing the stereotype of a nationalist being unworldly and even racist.” First of all, what does “unworldly” mean? And how does this “unworldliness” relate tonationalism? Secondly, while there is commonality between nationalism and racism(which I will address later on), racism is “

discrimination or prejudice based on race

”(fromdictionary.com). Therefore, it is inaccurate to refer to a nationalist as a racist(i.e. that nationalism = racism, without identifying a difference between the two).

Such blurring of definitions, I believe, is what led the writer to struggle so much todefine nationalism in the first place!The second major fault the writer commits is to focus on

non-essentials

when tryingto define nationalism. If I was to ask you: “What’s a cat?” You wouldn’t say (or, atleast, I hope you wouldn’t): “it comes in different colours, has two ears, cansometimes be aggressive, but usually brings joy to its owner.” While thesedescriptions can be true, they do not define a cat. These characteristics are notessential to the defintion of a cat, and most of them are shared by other animals,which does not help to distinguish (or

define

) “cat.”In this respect, nationalism can’t be defined by it leading nations into war. That’s a potential consequence, but is not the definition of nationalism. This includes all theexamples given by the writer on what Kuwaiti students do abroad to keep aconnection with the culture they left behind.What’s upsetting is that the definition of nationalism comes between the lines in someinstances in the article, but the writer doesn’t refer directly to it. He also fails torecognize how negative some aspects of nationalism are, and even regards these asvirtues! I will define nationalism towards the end of this post, and will refer back tothis article in order to explain what these aspects are, and why they are negative. Butfirst, let’s include the second article into the discussion…

Article 2: “National Day”

“National Day” is an interview conducted with a graduate of International Relations,and the interviewer posed to her some questions regarding nationalism and patriotism.The interviewee answered 10 questions on the topic of nationalism, which range fromthe difference between nationalism and patriotism, to what do the national days(independence and liberation) of Kuwait mean to the Kuwaiti community?This article covers more topics than the previous one, but it doesn’t deal with thesetopics in depth. There are many important concepts considered, such as the benefits of nationalism, nationalism and its relation to the individual and to the state, its relationto modernity, its prominence in wealthy nations, the link between wars and nation-states and many concepts that branch from these.Rather than sum up the interviewee’s answers here, I will discuss them in thecommentary, as it is very difficult to mention them without including a commentary.

Commentary on “National Day”

If the first article was ambiguous, the second article is partly meaningless, and partlydangerous in the understanding of nationalism it asserts and promotes. There are awide range of problems in this article, and I don’t know where to place the blame for them: the interviewer, the interviewee, the editor, the proofreader..?

Spelling mistakes aside, many sentences are not in proper English, so it’s verydifficult to make out what the interviewee is trying to say. But these are minor problems, in comparison to the definitions she gives, and the opinions she expresses.The first question asked was: “

What is the difference between patriotism and nationalism?

” (a beautiful question, which is why I dedicated this post to it)She begins her answer with: “Patriotism is the actual state of hand.”Ok… so what does that mean? And what’s “state

hand”? She tries to elaborate bysaying: “For example, a person feels loyal to Kuwait.” I don’t know what this is anexample of, but it doesn’t seem to be related to her definition of patriotism. Also,loyalty is a very broad term, and when discussing patriotism and nationalism, it canmean many different things, as we will see later.Her definition of nationalism is meaningless, and long-winded: “While Nationalismmay be seen as something to do with the state, or a group of people share samehistory, language and believes, also it can be seen as something to do with the state, or with people who may share certain elements and may be overlap the state bounds” (alllinguistic mistakes are in the original). She gives Arab Nationalism as an example of the latter part of her definition.Ok, so what is this “something” that has to do with the state? And if we refer to anindividual as a nationalist, then what relation does he have to the state?The second question posed to the interviewee was: “

Are there any benefits of patriotism to the country and to the individual?

” (The distinction between state andindividual deserves credit. A very thoughtful question)She begins with: “It is being loyal to die to the state.”The rest of the answer is not very clear, especially since she avoids using importantwords that can make her answer clearer. She justifies this sacrificial attitude by statingthat it makes “the other individuals, who are not in the army, feel secure.” These“other individuals” could easily have been referred to as citizens. Furthermore, is thewillingness to die for the state limited only to the army, or should it be shared by allcitizens? It’s also not very clear from her answer why citizens (or the army) should bewilling to die for the state, and what possible benefit can they gain from this attitude?In other words, what does the state represent to the citizens, that they should bewilling to sacrifice themselves for it?The third question is: “

Can one be a patriot and criticise one’s government?

“The answer blurs the distinction between nationalism and patriotism. She begins with:“Today most people agree that patriotism also invloves service to their country.” Thisdoesn’t have much of a connection to the question, so I’ll avoid commenting on it.She then goes on to say that some people believe that you should show full “active”support for “government policies and actions,” whereas others say a “true patriot”should speak out against “unwise” and “unjust” actions by his government, giving thewomen’s right to vote in Kuwait as an example.